Transgender

Forum











Extending the Charm

By Tes Staylace
Copyright 1998

One admirer's perspective on petticoats, crinolines, hoops and farthingales


Remember! We alternate between "Petticoat Pond" and "Tightlacing Topics" (my URL for corsetry is http://www.staylace.com Feel free to write me at staylace@staylace.com! All e-mail will be answered.

Why are bulky skirts so intriguing? Why do they continue to find a place in the female wardrobe, despite their unwieldiness? What makes them so attractive?

Well, one of the most obvious answers is silhouette: A wide skirt exaggerates the female figure, allowing for the illusion of a thinner waist, and a curvaceous-ness that defines femininity of form.

Mystery is another aspect. What’s under there? The skirt seduces us into a world in which few men participate. Beneath the surface lies a myriad of captivating items: petticoats, garters, suspenders, stockings, panties, garterbelts, long girdles, long corsets—and the fragrances bestowed upon her flowergarden by the lady herself. How can one help but wonder….and desire to see and explore?

But the mere width of the garments seems to preclude our examining the contents further. So, we are stymied as well as seduced, urged on as well as separated. Perhaps this protection gives the lady the courage to further inflame his passions, she secure in the knowledge that any advances can be dealt with easily, and allowance for advance kept in proportion to her interest in the gen-tleman. A garment to control her libido, as well as that of the interloper.

But there is a dichotomy here: The strength endowed on womanhood by such garments is countered by the fact that they leave her "open-ended" and access-ible. Accessible to the elements, such as wind and unfortunate stumble; ac-cessible to unwarranted intrusion by those with little regard for the social pro-priety assumed above. This was particularly true during times in our history when it was considered uncomely for a lady to cover her private areas, further discussed below. At one time, hoop crinolines and voluminous petticoats placed a lady’s very well-being in immediate danger should her clothing catch fire, or should her hoop attach itself to a moving vehicle.

Recently, there existed a great deal of controversy on Broadway, because, during intermissions, the ladies’ rooms always had long lines, while men could zip in and out with very little wait. Advocates argued that ladies required stalls and men did not, so the ladies’ rooms should accommodate more fixtures than the mens’. The whole situation almost turned ugly, as some impatient (and improper) women charged into the gentlemens’ restrooms, waving off sur-prised reaction as necessary to further their cause.

There is an historical reason for this situation: During the earlier days of Broad-way (during the Victorian and Edwardian eras), it was considered indelicate for the distaff side to give the impression that she had to attend to bodily functions. Add to that the incredible project involved in undressing and redressing, along with the confining atmosphere of a facility stall, and one can well understand why ladies stayed in their seats during intermission. Therefore, little reason existed to construct the ladies’ rooms with too many fixtures—they wouldn’t use them anyway. Most women attended to their bodily functions BEFORE leaving for the theater, and drank and ate little thereafter. An examination of historical copies of Playbill type publications yields some affirmation of this situation: Almost every article was written to attract the female reader.

But wide skirts also helped in the personal activities of women during the hooped crinoline and farthingale eras: Anecdotal evidence suggests that there were instances of women attending lawn parties, and standing off to one side whilst urinating. No proper gentlemen would ever think a lady would do such a thing, but who would know? It was a day when women were proscribed from wearing any type of "pant-ed" garment, including drawers ("only a loose woman would wear pants!"). All it took was a little practice, and the lady could avoid a trip to the outhouse, with its attendant uncleanness. How happy the lady would be at the prospect of escaping the necessity to access such a small space in such a large skirt! Their "dirty" little secret!

So: Were the unwieldy (crinoline hoops) and confining (corsets) fashions of years gone by the result of male oppression? This seems to be a common bit of propoganda in our "feminist" culture. Those of us who appreciate these fine adornments nonwithstanding, it was males who actually caricatured crinoline cages and tightlacing, expressing disdain and belittling women for their fashionably foolhardy adherence to "fads." It was men who pointed out possible medical deleterious effects fo tightlacing and the dangers of wearing cages, which could either catch fire, or become caught in a passing vehicle or other moving object. These observations became fertile ground for cartoonists’ satirical lampooning of these fashions.

So it was women who begot these innovations, and, unlike some men of another era, we are forever grateful to them and their understanding of the effects of feminine attire on men. Generally, with exception, modern women do not have a clue regarding the seductiveness of petticoats and the like. Rather, many feel that the fewer the articles of clothing they wear, the more attractive they are to men. One can only suppose they mistook the male’s admiration of the naked female form to be a signal to disrobe, not realizing that mystery is what beguiles the average man.

END OF PART I (Part II will be here in April!)



Back to
TGF's
Home Page